Lloyd Braun Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 It makes you wonder. If congress isn't reading the bills and don't know what is in them, who in the hell is writing them? Maybe that is the bigger question. Lobbyists? Staff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Maybe it is just because I also am in a profession that requires large amounts of information be taken on a daily basis to the point that it isn't practical for anybody to do it all.Reviews of the scientific literature are great things and greatly eases my ability to keep up w/ scientific literature. But you must admit that there is a profound difference between decisions a scientist must make and that of a politician. I understand where you are coming from, and I too rely on professional journals and other shared resources in my work at times. But you and I werent hired to specifically pass/not pass legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 :doh: This is why are govt and nation is in the shape it is in. Yeah, we should vote on something that we know nothing about can't understand and need to get passed. We should vote every single one of them out Rep and Dem and start over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted July 27, 2009 Share Posted July 27, 2009 Maybe it is just because I also am in a profession that requires large amounts of information be taken on a daily basis to the point that it isn't practical for anybody to do it all.Reviews of the scientific literature are great things and greatly eases my ability to keep up w/ scientific literature. Congress has one job: legislate. In order to legislate, you have to understand what you are doing. There is a reason these bills are so lengthy and worded in such an archaic way. So the other members of Congress won't read it. Hence why so much **** gets tacked on that 95% of Congress have to ask the media what part of the bill they are referring to. These people were elected for the sole purpose of legislating. They have a staff for a reason: to break down the bill for the member.Seriously, we expect 17-22 year olds to take 5 college classes per semester and be able to review and parse and learn and regurgitate enough information to pass, yet we can't expect a member of Congress, who is making a handsome living and have a large professional staff to assist them, to be responsible enough to actually understand the bills they are voting on? 32% of these clowns are lawyers (204 out of 635). If we cannot expect a lawyer to understand what is going on in Congress, how the hell can anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 I'm in the IT field. I handle security. Have no idea about it all. I get that i have 7 employees that do the detail oriented work. I spend quite a bit of time learning what is required of my people to know as I am responsible if they screw it up. a: Yes i would get writers of the bill to give me the 20 page quick reference to the 1200page bill. Then i would peruse the bill and if i saw "extra" things not mentioned or "KEY" things that are wrong. You break out the red sharpie and go to work on the questions. The more that is different the more time spent requesting clarification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Congress has one job: legislate. In order to legislate, you have to understand what you are doing. There is a reason these bills are so lengthy and worded in such an archaic way. So the other members of Congress won't read it. Hence why so much **** gets tacked on that 95% of Congress have to ask the media what part of the bill they are referring to. These people were elected for the sole purpose of legislating. They have a staff for a reason: to break down the bill for the member.Seriously, we expect 17-22 year olds to take 5 college classes per semester and be able to review and parse and learn and regurgitate enough information to pass, yet we can't expect a member of Congress, who is making a handsome living and have a large professional staff to assist them, to be responsible enough to actually understand the bills they are voting on? 32% of these clowns are lawyers (204 out of 635). If we cannot expect a lawyer to understand what is going on in Congress, how the hell can anyone? Where'd I state that they shouldn't be responsible for understanding what they are voting on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Let's be realistic. Does anybody actually believe that more than a very few people in the world can read and understand all of the legislation Congress passes and do the campaigning and fund raising they have to in a years time?I have a PhD in chemistry. Just for fun (thinking about the implications for healthcare) I tried to read my car insurance policy (20 pages) from Geico. I got through 3 pages in about 20 minutes, and I realistically didn't understand it all. For most people, you could give them all of the time in the world, and they REALLY wouldn't understand 1,000 pages of legal text from reading it, and I've never heard anybody claim we are electing the best and the brightest. If they don't understand it, they shouldn't be voting on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Where'd I state that they shouldn't be responsible for understanding what they are voting on? Isn't that what you said in the above quote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Isn't that what you said in the above quote? There are ways to understand books and the like w/o actually reading tham all yourself. Try reading some of the other posts in the thread (not all of them or PM SnyderShrugged), and you might understand my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 There are ways to understand books and the like w/o actually reading tham all yourself.Try reading some of the other posts in the thread (not all of them or PM SnyderShrugged), and you might understand my point. I understand what you're trying to say, but how can you say both that and that most people wouldn't understand 1,000 pages with all the time in the world? Just because someone else reads a chunk of those 1,000 pages wouldn't change the fact that you have to understand all 1,000. (And by the way, most of the bill makes so many references to other parts of the bill that going "study-group style" is virtually impossible.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I understand what you're trying to say, but how can you say both that and that most people wouldn't understand 1,000 pages with all the time in the world? Just because someone else reads a chunk of those 1,000 pages wouldn't change the fact that you have to understand all 1,000.(And by the way, most of the bill makes so many references to other parts of the bill that going "study-group style" is virtually impossible.) Because people can explain things to you that you yourself wouldn't understand from reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Because people can explain things to you that you yourself wouldn't understand from reading it. The last thing I want to see is a bunch of politicians "explaining" a bill to each other. They have the objectivity of a garden hose. (For example, do you think Dodd "explained" that AIG amendment to many people?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 They have the objectivity of a garden hose. When is the last time your garden hose wasn't objective? Mine tends to put water on the spot I aim it, every time and in the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 When is the last time your garden hose wasn't objective? Mine tends to put water on the spot I aim it, every time and in the same way. Damnit, tech, stop ruining my points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Damnit, tech, stop ruining my points. That attempt at figurative language reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from Black Adder: Blackadder: Disease and deprivation stalk our land like... two giant stalking things. Also from that episode, one of my favorite scenes of all from that show, and the video's on Youtube! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 (For example, do you think Dodd "explained" that AIG amendment to many people?) I don't know. How many people asked him to? Do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I don't know. How many people asked him to?Do you know? Come on, now you're just playing dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
88Comrade2000 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Sadly, this happens all the time. Why Barack Obama was complaining when Bush was doing it. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/07/27/obama-2004-bush-rushed-legislationthrough-congress-without-allowing-ti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeaconBlue Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Let's be realistic. Does anybody actually believe that more than a very few people in the world can read and understand all of the legislation Congress passes and do the campaigning and fund raising they have to in a years time?I have a PhD in chemistry. Just for fun (thinking about the implications for healthcare) I tried to read my car insurance policy (20 pages) from Geico. I got through 3 pages in about 20 minutes, and I realistically didn't understand it all. For most people, you could give them all of the time in the world, and they REALLY wouldn't understand 1,000 pages of legal text from reading it, and I've never heard anybody claim we are electing the best and the brightest. How about as a congressperson/senator its your job to read and understand EVERYTHING you vote on einstein.Hoe retarded do you have to be to suggest that that any memeber of the legislature not so much as READ a bill? What a buffoon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeaconBlue Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I don't know. How many people asked him to?Do you know? IM guessing NONE! Cause they didnt READ it slick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
81artmonk Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 Let me also ask...what ELSE should they be doing if not reading and understanding key legislation? DING DING DING DING DING.......We have a winna!!!!! Passing good legislation?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 An unforgivable statement. He actually should be booted for Congress for it. It's his job to represent the people. If he can't read, digest, or assemble a staff to help him read and digest the Bills put before him how the heck can he advocate, represent, or serve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 An unforgivable statement. He actually should be booted for Congress for it. It's his job to represent the people. If he can't read, digest, or assemble a staff to help him read and digest the Bills put before him how the heck can he advocate, represent, or serve?I think it makes a larger point about unnecessary complication of the legislative process.I don't think its intentional, I think he's just lazy and towing the line. Most legislators won't read it anyway, they will have staff do it for them. That's who really makes the laws. I wonder how many pages include pork and such? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted July 28, 2009 Author Share Posted July 28, 2009 They are off for for 30 days. they can peruse 40 pages a day.. It's probably the largest legislation of their 40 years in office lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted July 28, 2009 Share Posted July 28, 2009 I think it makes a larger point about unnecessary complication of the legislative process.I don't think its intentional, I think he's just lazy and towing the line. Most legislators won't read it anyway, they will have staff do it for them. That's who really makes the laws. I wonder how many pages include pork and such? I agree... and it should be unacceptable. I don't really have a problem if he has his staff read it or if even he gets a group of experts to decipher every part of it. However, he does need to "read" every page. Using multiple definitons of "reading" They are off for for 30 days.they can peruse 40 pages a day.. It's probably the largest legislation of their 40 years in office lives. Yup. And your earlier sharpie comment was spot on. He needs to take advantage of his staff and subject experts, but he has to read it, understand it, and digest it personally if he's going to do his job. If he's not... give him the boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.